December 15, 2012

School Shootings From a Christian Perspective

It's difficult to image the raw pain of losing a child in an instant and what would cause a person to gun down little ones in a school shooting. The question of school shootings usually defers quickly to political questions about gun control, as is the case with the Newtown, Connecticut massacre on December 14, 2012. However, I'd like to take a few minutes to examine this issue of US school shootings from more of a spiritual-philosophical perspective.

One of the main questions we see on the Internet is, "What was the motive?" This is an illusive question that is still being asked with respect to school shootings as far back as Columbine. There often does not seem to be a clear-cut motive. This implies that the more relevant question is, "What were the main influences that led up to this?" And, another question arises, "Is it possible that negative influences on a young man can influence him towards killing others without him even considering the nature of his motivations?"
In the case of the Connecticut school shooting, all that we know about Adam Lanza is that he was "a bright and painfully awkward student who seemed to have no close friends." There may have been influences dating back to public school that helped to form the mindset of the 20-year-old shooter. The motives of the Columbine shooting are still being debated. USA Today Journalists have continued to try and make sense of the slaughter by reading and discussing private journal entries.

"According to Cullen, one of Harris' last journal entries read: "I hate you people for leaving me out of so many fun things. And no don't … say, 'Well that's your fault,' because it isn't, you people had my phone #, and I asked and all, but no. No no no don't let the weird-looking Eric KID come along." As he walked into the school the morning of April 20, Harris' T-shirt read: Natural Selection. Klebold, on the other hand, was anxious and lovelorn, summing up his life at one point in his journal as "the most miserable existence in the history of time," Langman notes."

Personal feelings and strong emotions obviously played a big role in the Columbine incident. Many people have experienced these types of feelings as a kind of 'right of passage' into mature adulthood. The question is, "Why are some young people unable to manage these extremely painful feelings without violently attacking others?" A possible clue to this answer was written on the T-shirt that Eric Harris wore during his massacre at Columbine. The phrase "natural selection" on his T-shirt is a phrase that is well-known to every public school student.

Every day in public schools children are taught that we are all merely products of an a-moral process of evolution, and the ramifications of such a teaching are quite far reaching. There is no hint or suggestion allowed in school that life might have a deeper significance or a higher purpose. And, though the most prominent atheist apologists in the world cannot seem to defend their positions logically against prominent theists, this secular-atheist hegemony of ideas remains in public schools. There is overwhelming evidence that top atheist apologists cannot hold their own in debates with theists, as noted here, here, and here. Nevertheless, children are unfortunately left with the false impression in public schools that atheistic secular humanism is the most logical explanation of existence.

Gallup Polls have demonstrated that more religious countries have lower suicide rates. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to determine that, for example, a worldview that teaches we are created with great value and purpose would offer more reasons for respecting life than a worldview that suggests life first occurred basically by accident as a random occurrence. A major problem with public school system is that it does not address the question of worldviews. By avoiding an objective discussion of worldviews, a lopsided, atheistic-materialistic approach to education is offered by default.

For example, students in public schools are not taught that Charles Darwin believed God was responsible for life on Earth. In the conclusion of the sixth edition of Darwin's classic work, The Origin of Species, Darwin specifically used the word "creator" to define the one who "breathed" the first breath of life into living beings on Earth: “…having been originally breathed by the creator into a few forms or into one..." This 6th edition was the final version, the final result of years of editing. This quote by Darwin would not be allowed in public school textbooks today because science today generally follows what is known as methodological naturalism. This simply means that academia has chosen to limit science to natural causes. An accurate preface to a public school textbook would read as follows:

"This science textbook is based upon the process of methodological naturalism. This basically means that science today has been limited to the description of natural causes. If your worldview ascribes potential to supernatural causes, such as the creation of the universe and the creation of life, keep in mind that this textbook does not address these questions philosophically, but simply presupposes materialist explanations."

Public school curricula and textbooks today present ideas from an exclusively atheistic-materilaistic perspective, while there is an underlying pretension that the education is philosophically neutral. Eviscerating education of all worldviews except for one is not true neutrality. This is philosophical censorship. The censorship of all other worldviews is all the more deceitful because this censorship is never addressed and discussed in class.

Instead of offering an appropriate introduction, textbooks are presented in public schools without describing the philosophical framework and context. The underlying presupposition is that 'Science can and will answer all the important questions." This presupposition, however, is quite false. This approach is known basically as 'scientism' and 'positivism' and is actually a philosophical belief framework. Practically all secular reference sources state that positivism as a philosophical position is a "dead" one. For example, the New World Encyclopedia, "Today, among most philosophers, positivism is dead..." Nevertheless, atheists at my blog continue to say, "Science possesses all the instruments that philosophy has for that [addressing foundational questions]."

If adults do not even recognize how to distinguish between scientific truth and very basic philosophical understandings, how can we expect young public school children to make these distinctions and affirm their philosophical autonomy in the midst of this type of pressure? If we don't allow racism in public schools, why should we allow scientism? The system is rigged against any children who hold any view other than the promoted materialistic-atheistic one. This is not limited to the general approach, it pertains to the text in the chapters as well.

When public schools touch on the theme of life's origin, the Stanley Miller experiment is often cited. However, the films and textbooks fail to mention the many negative aspects of the Miller experiment and the fact that the experiment did not even come close to producing life. At best, the experiment produces a mixture of complex organic compounds, which are not organized. It may be likened more to a dead body than life.

1. By implication, public schools present a form of positivism as a supposed valid philosophical approach towards acquiring knowledge.
2. Most secular reference sources agree that positivism is a "dead" philosophical approach.
3. Therefore, pubic schools present a dead philosophical approach to students by default.

When you consider the big picture, it's easy to see how public schools teach materialistic atheism as true by implication.:

1. Contemporary science is based on methodological naturalism - the avoidance of the supernatural as a possible cause.

2. Public schools present science as the best (and only) systematic explanation of reality and the world in which we live.

3. Public schools do not qualify atheism and scientific knowledge in the context of philosophical limits, in the context other worldviews, or in the context of updated criticisms waged against specific theories.

4. Therefore, public schools teach atheistic-materialism as factual by implication.

1. P presents A as true in S.
2. P presents S as the most reliable (and only) authority on what constitutes reality.
3. P does not qualify A or S in P, w or C or at all.
4. Therefore, P implies A is true always.

Public schools skip over logic and philosophy and offer curricula and
textbooks that wrongly imply that materialistic atheism is the most logical approach towards understanding the nature of reality. The opposite is more likely the case as top atheist apologists cannot hold their own
and logically defend atheistic materialism in debate.
In researching for a brief article on religion in public education, I noticed that even secular organizations are beginning to officially recommend classes on religion in public school. A Position Statement of National Council for the Social Studies states, "Study about religions may be dealt with in special courses and units or wherever and whenever knowledge of the religious dimension of human history and culture is needed for a balanced and comprehensive understanding."

As US school massacres continue and corruption in US society increases, hopefully people will understand the need for a broader presentation of ideas for students to think about. Sadly, many public school teachers have been fired for simply stating what they believe about life's meaning when asked by students. This has been well-documented in the film, IndoctriNation. The debate on God's existence and the meaning of life is far from over with regard to philosophical and logical arguments. Nonetheless, many secular humanists believe that no such discussions should ever take place in a public school.

Deuteronomy 30.19 states, "This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live."

If children are not allowed to even discuss the meaning of life and teachers are not allowed to explain their beliefs when asked, in what manner does this represent a free society where choice exists? As a missionary in Ukraine, I was impressed that public schools there did allow for the discussion of such questions and one approved textbook actually presented atheistic materialism as one explanation of the origin of life and divine creation as another explanation. The pre-K program at a Ukraine was actually teaching logic to kids. However, what I've found in the US kindergarten is an avoidance of critical thinking and emphasis on following directions.

To remove choice is a choice. And, in answer to the questions posed at the beginning of the post, I would offer that influences on young people can help to move them towards committing heinous acts, even if they are unaware of such influences. Nature abhors a vacuum. This principle also applies philosophically and spiritually. I am not claiming that the Connecticut killer was influenced overtly by these types of reasons alone. I am claiming that this is a factor that should be seriously considered.

When it comes to killing massess of people, atheistic and secular humanistic socities have taken the prize in history in terms of shear numbers. As a political leader, Mao Ze-Dong takes the prize as the greatest killer. Joseph Stalin is not too far behind. Instead of viewing all subjects through the lens of materialistic atheism and banning any and all spiritual-philsophical material, there should be a more objective and open-minded presentation of subject matter.

By objectively considering history, it may be understood that atheism and secular humanism have been used to logically justify both racism and extreme genocide and still may be used to justify such actions today. And, the fact is, more people have been killed by atheistic and secular governments when guns had already been taken away and people were defenseless.

I am not in any way suggesting that transcendent worldviews are true because they offer better societies or better psychological results. That is a logical fallacy known as an appeal to consequences. I am simply offering that a fair and objective approach to education should be available to public school children. That's it.

Don't neglect the effects of education. Scientific positivism is a dead
philosophy. The fact that public schools continue to present science and
atheistic methodological naturalism as the "be-all and end-all" for
determining the nature of reality is deceitful. Until there is a fair
and balanced view of history, philosophy and religion in public schools,
the negative aspects of secular humanism and atheism being taught by
default will continue to negatively affect society on many levels.

(updated 12/23/12)

Tags: motive for Newtown, Connecticut school shooting, causes of Newtown, Connecticut school shooting, vacuum of meaning in public education, the influences of atheistic, materialistic secular humanism, censorship of worldviews in public school, secular humanism and genocide, logical positivism is dead, nonreligious people are more likely to commit suicide, philosophical censorship in public schools, scientism and racism, how public schools teach atheism

81 comments:

That is complete and delusional bull, Rick. But you will grasp at any straw no matter how ridiculous to support your position, will you not?

If your hypothesis was even remotely correct mass shootings would have been even more common in non-religious Europe.

I see that you still enjoy your ignorance and slander against people. You are also pitiful since you are unable to find meaning without the concept of a Jewish zombie. And the way you falsely coin Mao and Stalin as secular humanists would have been hilarious if it was not so sad.

>If your hypothesis was even remotely correct mass shootings would have been even more common in non-religious Europe.

- If you take a step back and look at the big picture of history, you will see that atheistic, anti-religious Eastern Europe has been the location of the greatest massacres, second only to Mao Ze-Dong's China.

We have yet to see the full fruits of current and future atheistic secular humanist influences. But, if people like Richard Dawkins and other militant atheists have their way, the world will be considered better off without the 'plague of religion' and those who adhere to it.

Red herring. We are speaking about the current situation, not about history.

Furthermore, no political persecutions were done because of atheism in history. You may rumble about persecution of religion, but it was not done because of atheism.

R:We have yet to see the full fruits of current and future atheistic secular humanist influences.

Aren t the end of times supposed to be near and the corruptional level at its peak? 8)

Your claim is ridiculous and empty. I might just as well claim that we have yet to see the full fruits current and future religious influence. Though, in my case I give concrete examples of the negative impact.

Warden- If you take a step back and look at the big picture of history, you will see that atheistic, anti-religious Eastern Europe has been the location of the greatest massacres, second only to Mao Ze-Dong's China.Here's a history lesson for you Warden: The xian-inspired 30 Years War in the German states in the 1700's. About a THIRD of the entire population died. Yet that was without the efficient killing weapons and the larger population that we have today.

Here's the point for you to grasp, Warden: Per Capita those numbers are far worse than from any "athiestic" gov't.

It isn't "holiness" or "religiously-inspired value of life" that made the modern genocidal gov'ts have a higher numerical death toll than the religious gov'ts of the past: It's just that there are more efficient weapons and more people.

P.S. Your claim about an increase in "corruption" is also hilarious, since statistics do show that the quality of life has been increasing and violence has been decreasing for at least 2 thousand years in the world. Though, since reality does not conform to delusions of your scripture, you will once again ignore it.

>statistics do show that the quality of life has been increasing and violence has been decreasing for at least 2 thousand years in the world.

-Do show where these comparative lists of corruption statistic categories in the world have been archived for all these years. Or, you might want to admit that there is no such objective accounting of such statistical categories available.

R:The moral advances of Western Civilation were mainly based on Christianity for the past 2000 years.

Like the introduction of witch-hunting? 8)

R:Corruption Is Increasing Faster In America Than Anywhere

Congratulations, Rick. You have learnt nothing from the numerous lessons on sociology imnotandrei and have offered to you. You can be proud of being called a dunce.

1) You cannot conflate the increase of corruption in one country with the increase of corruption in the world. If violence has increased in Afghanistan the last decades it does not mean that violence has increased in the world as a whole.

2) Amnesty International use the term corruption to describe the bribery level. On the other hand, you use the biblical definition, which is completely different. Therefore, you statistics are worthless.

>Oh! And here is also an interesting lecture from Pinker at Stanford University.

Anonymous, you are like a broken record, a skipping CD, or whatever analogy you want to use. You have yet to respond to my original reply on this point:

Show us the data that Pinker's hypothesis is based on. Where are the comparative lists of corruption statistic and categories that have supposedly formed the basis of Pinker's 2000 year corruption theory.

Reynold,

>That's bad news for you Rick, since America is one of the most xianized countries out there!

- Newsflash. People have been steadily leaving churches in the US:

"Clearly, a disconnect between what Americans say and what they actually do has created a sense of a resilient church culture when, in fact, it may not exist.

2. American church attendance is steadily declining..."

Summary: US Church attendance is declining - US corruption is increasing...

I gave you links wich you chose to ignore. They include national and international statistics, antropogenic data, archeological evidence and so on. Pinker and other researches took the data from a varied number of sources.

Pinker cites them in his lectures and I even found a site where many parts of his powerpoint presentation are shown (http://nhne-pulse.org/steven-pinker-humankind-is-getting-nicer/). The precise sources are listed in the powerpoint slides in most cases. Get the book if you want to know all the 100 sources Pinker uses.

And he is not the only one. Joshua Goldstein and Andrew Mack made the same conclusion before. Let me site the article from the Hufingtone Post:

"Even the academics who disagree with Pinker, Goldstein and Mack, say the declining violence numbers are real."

You cannot deny brute facts, Rick.

R:Newsflash. People have been steadily leaving churches in the US

Red herring, Rick. The church attendance is still much higher in the US than in Europe. If you hypothesis was correct, the corruption level in Europe should be much higher than in the US.

R:US corruption is increasing...

You still dishonestly use the statistics on corruption from Amnesty International.

1. It was pointed out to you that this organisation does not use the term in the biblical sense while you do.

2. The current corruption level of the US is almost equal to the japanese one. One of the most bribe-free countries in the world.

3. You need long-term statistics to make your point and not just small flunctiation compared to the previous year like you do now. In 2009 the US scored the same level 7.5 as in 2012. And in 2008 it was even lower, reaching 7.1. This information completely discredits your position.

4. Are you going to argue that the corruption level in the US in the early 1900s was lower than in the 2000s? That is what your statement implies and that is obviously not the case.

Non-sense Rick, Sorry old friend! To early for judgement! You are so quick to judge and say it must be lack of God. Has nothing to do with this new libertarian, selfish, gun nut, 2nd ammendment, conspiracy, anti-government thinking, philosphy. Church is God time and school is reading, writing, arithmetic. If you want God school send them to Christian or Catholic schools. You went to public schools in NJ that was only about the three R's. You did your church time at church and in your home. You libertarian's are suppose to be for seperation of church and state. In fact, most libertarian's are athiest's, don't get you bro??? Gun violence is an all time high, kids are at shooting ranges at 5 and 6 years of age. Gun's have become toys and games. People are worshipping the gun(NRA). We must ban deadly weapons! Morals are taught in school. This boy was teased, you remember how bad boys were in their youth, Rick. I remember a nerdy boy who was teased to tears every day. This is damaging. We need to educate our kids at home and school to be kinder. Peace to you and your fam, Merry Christmas, from a Christian who is accepting of all religion's and believes that public school for all should be about the 3 R's and learning right from wrong.

Your comment is all over the place. But I'll start with this point. As the article notes, even secular humanist (i.e. non-religious) organizations recommend a more balanced approach to education. Sorry to dissappoint you, John, but these people aren't even religious. From the article:

In researching for a brief article on religion in public education, I noticed that even secular organizations now officially recommend classes on religions in public school. A Position Statement of National Council for the Social Studies states, "Study about religions may be dealt with in special courses and units or wherever and whenever knowledge of the religious dimension of human history and culture is needed for a balanced and comprehensive understanding."

As you noted, we both went to public school. So, let me ask you, John: Was there ever a mention in your entire life as a public school student that the origin of life has not been defintitely proven and is still open for debate?

Wasn't the main underlying assumption that the origin of life was based on some type of materialistic explanation?

In my public school expereince I found that questioning the official atheist-materialist paradigm was considered heresy.

So, what does that imply. John? It implies that there is ultimately no meaning in life other than the implication that we are living bags of fertilizer for a while and then the game is over.

Is that what you believe, John?

If not, then why are you defending such a philosphical narrative that forces students to accept basic ideas they may or may not believe, all the while causing many students to have less hope and less of a sense of purpose in life?

WardenIn my public school expereince I found that questioning the official atheist-materialist paradigm was considered heresy.Did they threaten you with imprisonment or death Warden like the xian-run countries of the past used to for real charges of heresy?

Or did they just say that you were wrong and you got your feelings hurt?

Did it ever occur to you that maybe, just maybe, there is enough evidence that the "materialist" "paradigm" (I'm assuming you're just talking about the origin of the universe) is correct and no evidence of any other view?

You also made a "mistake" when you called it the "official athiest-materialist" paradigm. Why? Schools are supposed to be religiously NEUTRAL. They can't say that there is a god and they can't say that there is NOT a god. By your usage of the word "official" you are outright saying that schools all over are saying that there is no god.

Citations needed or apologize for your lie.

WardenIf not, then why are you defending such a philosphical narrative that forces students to accept basic ideas they may or may not believe, all the while causing many students to have less hope and less of a sense of purpose in life?This is why I don't buy your pretense of supporting logic, Warden. That little spiel about "having less hope and less of a sense of purpose" is nothing but the fallacy of consequences of belief.

What a theory makes a person feel has NO relevance as to whether it's true or not. It's just emotional manipulation on your part.

If not, then why are you defending such a philosphical narrative that forces students to accept basic ideas they may or may not believe, all the while causing many students to have less hope and less of a sense of purpose in life?

1) You're the one, and people who believe in creationism in general, who are creating the "philosophical narrative" that evolution, indeed the Big Bang, are contrary to a religious view. There is *nothing* in such a scientific viewpoint that *forces* people not to accept the existence of a God -- it's you and your kind who've chosen to make it that way.

2) If a student's Christian (or any religious) faith is so weak that despite the support of their family and faith community, it can be driven out of them by not being supported by their school, it's hardly going to be a strong enough faith to withstand the tests of the world.

3) Even if one were to accept that it has the cause you describe (which I do not) -- would it be better to *lie* to them, to give them more hope and more sense of purpose? Would you rather know the truth, or the comforting lie, Rick?

(Also, Reynold, you nailed it -- the consequential fallacy in a nutshell.)

>Did they threaten you with imprisonment or death Warden like the xian-run countries of the past...

- Reynold, we've been here and done this before. Pointing out the most corrupt elements within church history as examples of so-called Christianity has nothing whatsoever to do with the most basic aspects of true Christianity exemplified in scripture and in Christ.

> Schools are supposed to be religiously NEUTRAL. They can't say that there is a god and they can't say that there is NOT a god. By your usage of the word "official" you are outright saying that schools all over are saying that there is no god.

- This is precisely the underlying message of the secular humanist public school education. For example, the question of the origin of life is not open for discussion. It is simply presupposed that life formed through natural causes, using such examples as Stanley Miller.

Although secular textbooks continue to state that Miller was successful in creating amino acids necessary for life, the textbooks and media fail to mention that what Miller actually produced was a mixture of left and right-handed amino acids, which is detrimental to life.

Richard Dawkins is a classic example of this type of biased, historical revisionist slant with his comments about Charles Darwin.

Do you believe that public school textbooks would ever quote these key lines from The Origin of Species? In the conclusion of the 6th edition Darwin specifically used the word "creator" to define the one who "breathed" the first breath of life into living beings on Earth: “…having been originally breathed by the creator into a few forms or into one..."[2]

US schools do whatever the DOE and laws dictate. And teachers use the textbooks provided for them. The study of science and history is anything but neutral, it is based on a secular-humanist atheistic paradigm. The only examples of Christianity offered in US textbooks are usually negative, if these historical influences are mentioned at all.

A landmark book called The Trouble with Textbooks, by Dr. Gary A. Tobin and Dennis R. Ybarra described results of a comprehensive study they conducted of the 28 most widely used Social Studies textbooks in the United States. The researchers found that U.S. textbooks often contain "repeated misrepresentations that cross the line into bigotry.” Examples included Jesus being called a Palestinian, Islam being "treated with a devotional tone in some textbooks, less detached and analytical than it ought to be. Muslim beliefs are described in several instances as fact, without any clear qualifier such as Muslims believe...' The Islamic empire of the Middle Ages was presented as “a time of unqualified glory without blemishes”, while various aspects of the wars of Arab states against Israel were misrepresented.

- Reynold, we've been here and done this before. Pointing out the most corrupt elements within church history as examples of so-called Christianity has nothing whatsoever to do with the most basic aspects of true Christianity exemplified in scripture and in Christ.

And yet you're quite willing to point out bad elements in modern society and claim they're the result of atheism - why is one exclusion valid and the other is not? This gets back to your "true Christianity" that is never defined, and only exists when bad things aren't being done.

Your exceptionalism is especially inappropriate when you use it at the same time that you try and draw causation from weak correlation, as in this article.

For example, the question of the origin of life is not open for discussion. It is simply presupposed that life formed through natural causes, using such examples as Stanley Miller.

If there was any valid creationist *science*, that could be taught. As it is, all there is that is out there is either a) discredited, or b) relying upon the initial presumption of the validity of the Bible. As such, it's religious -- and doesn't belong.

Although secular textbooks continue to state that Miller was successful in creating amino acids necessary for life, the textbooks and media fail to mention that what Miller actually produced was a mixture of left and right-handed amino acids, which is detrimental to life.

Given that both levo- and dextro-rotary amino acids exist in organisms in nature *now*(1), this is clearly a false assertion

Do you believe that public school textbooks would ever quote these key lines from The Origin of Species? In the conclusion of the 6th edition Darwin specifically used the word "creator" to define the one who "breathed" the first breath of life into living beings on Earth: “…having been originally breathed by the creator into a few forms or into one..."[2]

Guess what? The lines are irrelevant -- science has progressed beyond Darwin; we know things to be true that he did not, and possess a much greater understanding of the world than he did.

Those lines, and that debate, might be significant for the history of science -- *might*, since I haven't gone back to see if the article cited contains your usual realm of half-truths, faulty logic, and distortions -- but for teaching science as it is understood now? Utterly irrelevant.

Examples included Jesus being called a Palestinian,

Well, if a historical Jesus existed, he existed in the land known for many, many years as Palestine, so this hardly seems a bigoted statement. As for the rest, since you've only provided the most basic of summary quotes, I can't argue as to their accuracy or lack thereof.

A "fair and balanced" (to use your phrase) view of religion in the public schools belongs in history class -- and will include, along with the good things religion has brought (its contributions to the arts, the sciences, and many social movements) the bad things that it has brought -- with no claim that some parts of it represent "True" Religion X, and other parts do not.

R:Christianity has nothing whatsoever to do with the most basic aspects of true Christianity exemplified in scripture and in Christ

True Scotsman fallacy. You have not provided any objective criteria to establish what a true christian is.

Furthermore, you use a double standart by invoquing the worst examples of "atheists" Mao, Hitler and Stalin whenever you want.

You even called some of the secular humanists. Though, they all lived by dogma and secular humanism rejects domatic beliefs.

R:For example, the question of the origin of life is not open for discussion.

Because there is nothing to discuss since we lack complete data. Different scientific theories are presented like the Miller experiment or the asteroid hypothesis. However, creationism is not a scientific theory and therefore has no place in a science class.

R:textbooks and media fail to mention that what Miller actually produced was a mixture of left and right-handed amino acids, which is detrimental to life

That is false. Most people are fully aware of the fact that not all the amynoacides were syntesised during the experiment. But a lot of other ones have been carried out since then. I am not going to go into details, since imnotandrei is still waiting your response on the Miller experiment where he talked about this.

R:Richard Dawkins is a classic example of this type of biased, historical revisionist slant with his comments about Charles Darwin

You are a liar, Rick. Dawkins never did that and I explained that before.

R:Do you believe that public school textbooks would ever quote these key lines from The Origin of Species?

Nope, because that part is irrelevant to the scientific theory of evolution.

R:The study of science and history is anything but neutral, it is based on a secular-humanist atheistic paradigm.

Liar, there is no such thing. Read about what science means, Rick.

R:Examples included Jesus being called a Palestinian

Newsflash. Jesus was a Palestinian, since he was born in a land called Palestina at the time.

R:Islam being "treated with a devotional tone in some textbooks, less detached and analytical than it ought to be.

DO provide examples of that "devotional tone". So far it is a bald assertion.

R:Muslim beliefs are described in several instances as fact, without any clear qualifier such as Muslims believe...'

Examples, please.

R:The Islamic empire of the Middle Ages was presented as “a time of unqualified glory without blemishes”

Compared to Europe so it was.

R:while various aspects of the wars of Arab states against Israel were misrepresented.

Warden quoting me: Schools are supposed to be religiously NEUTRAL. They can't say that there is a god and they can't say that there is NOT a god. By your usage of the word "official" you are outright saying that schools all over are saying that there is no god.This is precisely the underlying message of the secular humanist public school education.Your half-baked "exampless" of textbooks giving only one origin of life? Please. Those textbooks are only giving the theory that there is actually evidence for!

What else do you expect? Besides, even so, they are not saying whether any god did or did not have any hand in it, as they shouldn't.

If you claim that "godlessness" is the "official" stance of the school boards we want citations of them saying that...of the doing that! Ideally, there would be something from the DEA (the federal dept of education if possible), after all, you said say earlier that it was "official", Warden!

You're going out on a limb here, just as you are by using proven b.s. artist Paul Vitz as a source of supposed textbook bias.

\or example, the question of the origin of life is not open for discussion. It is simply presupposed that life formed through natural causes, using such examples as Stanley Miller.

>Those textbooks are only giving the theory that there is actually evidence for! What else do you expect?

- What should be expected is an objective and accurate presentation of knowledge framed in context.

Firstly, it would be appropriate, for example, to plainly and accurately explain to students that experiments such as the Stanley Miller one do not even come close to producing life. At best the experiment produces a mixture of complex organic compounds, which are not organized. It is more like a dead body than life.

Secondly, these types of subjects should be framed within the proper context. Science is a body of knowledge that does not address foundational questions about existence. Charles Darwin seemed to have understood this and framed his book on evolution within the appropriate context.

The reason why philosophers reject scientific positivism is because it cannot address foundational questions, the most important ones in the opinion of many. Yet, the MO of public school is to falsely imply that science and materialism can and have addressed these questions.

The reason why philosophers reject scientific positivism is because it cannot address foundational questions, the most important ones in the opinion of many. Yet, the MO of public school is to falsely imply that science and materialism can and have addressed these questions.

Funny -- a science class never seems like the right place to address philosophical questions; I'd do that in a philosophy class, and as subjects like that have been steadily starved out of the school system by an increased focus on things like test scores, you'll be hard-pressed to find them.

Furthermore, given that what I suspect are your "foundational questions" lack answers -- they have, instead, a vast range of answers depending on the assumptions and thoughts you bring into them -- they're not ideal high-school material, let alone for much younger kids.

Classes in ethical/moral development, civics, etc? Sure, if you can teach them in a way that isn't biased strongly towards a single religious source; indeed, we had this discussion a while back about sex ed classes, where I found at least one model curriculum that specifically *invited* the kids to discuss their religious feelings, without privileging them.

You may want science textbooks to address the Meaning of Life, but that's not the time or place for it.

>Bold assertion. Science possesses all the instruments that philosophy has for that. Furthermore, it has even additional ones.

- That is precisely the [false] message that students are led to believe in public schools, as implied by the presentation of the curricula. One of the links in the above article has already pointed out why this belief is a false one:

"Today, among most philosophers, positivism is dead, or at least as dead as a philosophical stance or movement ever becomes, but it is still alive among many scientists and others who are not well-versed in, or knowledgeable about, what has occurred in technical philosophy since the 1950s. The demise of positivism came for many reasons, among them that no specification of the positivist verification principle could ever be found that would withstand critical investigation."[9]

Thanks for helping to underscore the truth of my point. If you are unable to discern these types of differences and what science is and is not able to do, then why should young public school students be required to discern where school work ends and where their own philosophical autonomy begins. :-)

Rick, the way you quote your own discredited articles should be an embarrassment for you.

In this very thread you have abandoned at least a dozen of points. And the same thing almost always happens in every debate of yours.

Even right now you are commiting the fallacy of appealing to authority. Instead of offering arguments why science cannot answer "foundational questions" you just claim it cannot do so. If there is an answer to a question in the first place and sufficient data is available, you will receive a solid answer. With philosophy you will not get an answer, only speculations.

I used Transparency International as the source of corruption statistics. Why should it not be considered reliable. I even added "US" into the text to clarify the statistics: "As US school massacres continue and corruption in US society increases, hopefully people will understand the need for a broader presentation of ideas for students to think about."

BTW - your own quote is quite good and I've included it along with some additional information in the article:

Instead of offering an appropriate introduction,, textbooks are presented in public schools within no philosophical framework or context whatsoever. The underlying presupposition is that 'Science can and will answer all the important questions." This presupposition, however, is quite false. This approach is known basically as 'positivism' and practically all secular reference sources state that this philosophical position is a "dead" one. For example, the New World Encyclopedia, "Today, among most philosophers, positivism is dead..." Nevertheless, atheists at my blog continue to say, "Science possesses all the instruments that philosophy has for that [addressing foundational questions]."

If adults do not even recognize how to distinguish between scientific truth and very basic philosophical understandings, how can we expect young public school children to make these distinctions and affirm their philosophical autonomy in the midst of this type of pressure? The system is rigged against any children who hold any view other than the promoted materialistic-atheistic one. This is not limited to the general approach, it pertains to the text in the chapters as well.

You have cherry picked the data from Transperancy international to push your own propaganda, disregarding the difference in terms and reality, like the the difference between corruption in the biblical sense and bribery used by TI or that the bribery level in the US is lower than it was in the year 2008. You use smal flunctuations to push your agenda and that makes you a liar for Jesus.

Not to mention, you ignored several times the statistics for the lowering of violence in the world since ancient times.

R:Instead of offering an appropriate introduction,, textbooks are presented in public schools within no philosophical framework or context whatsoever.

Why are you not complaining that english grammar textbooks do not have a philosophical framework or context whatsoever in that case? There is a reason why science and philosophy are different disciplines. Science offers valid answers, while philosophy is limited to speculations.

R:If adults do not even recognize how to distinguish between scientific truth and very basic philosophical understandings

I asked your a question you have been avoiding like the plague for several threads. Science possesses all the instruments that philosophy has for addressing foundational questions. Why do you claim it cannot do so?

R:The system is rigged against any children who hold any view other than the promoted materialistic-atheistic one.

Sorry, Santa Clause has no place in a science class. If you want children to discuss philosophy, push for philosophy classes in schools. There you can discuss god, santa and the easter bunny as long as you like.

Why am I not surprised it took you less than 36 hours to try and use a tragedy to push your rhetorical tricks and shoddy logic for your cause?

Every day in public schools children are taught that we are all merely products of an a-moral process of evolution, and that's it.

Untrue statement.

Not being allowed to push Christian dogma onto kids is not the same as teaching them what you claim -- and what you claim isn't even what secular humanists believe. "Mere" doesn't enter into it -- that's the religious view of what we are without religion.

The question is, "Why are some young people unable to manage these extremely painful feelings without violently attacking others?"

Indeed, why are some of them unable to manage it without turning into homophobic bullies? Or taking their own lives? People are widely varied, Rick, and trying to explain away school shootings by a T-shirt slogan are ludicrous.

A possible clue to this answer was written on the T-shirt that Eric Harris wore during his massacre at Columbine. The phrase "natural selection" on his T-shirt is a phrase that is well-known to every public school student.

Indeed, and what about the mass murderer who wrote: "Thanks to you I died like Jesus Christ, to inspire generations of the weak and defenseless people." -- that's a possible clue as well.

There is overwhelming evidence that top atheist apoligsist cannot hold their own in debates with theists, as noted here, here, and here.

And, as usual, your old trick of citing your old articles and hoping that no one will go see how thoroughly they were discredited and rebutted in the comments.

Nevertheless, children are unfortunately left with the false impression in public schools that atheistic secular humanism is the most logical explanation of existence.

Actually, children are told that evolution best explains how we came to be here. It is just as inappropriate and unconstitutional to promote atheism as it is to promote a religious viewpoint -- a *scientific* one, on the other hand, is perfectly legitimate, and since evolution has vastly more scientific backing than the pseudo-scientific nonsense that is creationism, teaching it in science classes is utterly appropriate.

Nonetheless, many secular humanists believe that no such discussions should ever take place in a public school.

Tell me -- I presume you would have no problem with a Muslim, Wiccan, or Scientologist teacher explaining their views on life and meaning to your children (if you have any), and you would not protest in any way to the school board?

*History* of religion is one thing -- proselytizing another.

When it comes to killing massess of people, atheistic secular humanistic socities have taken the prize in history in terms of shear numbers.

Someone else has already pointed out the Thirty Years' War. I'll toss in the extirpation of the Albigensian Heresy, which is estimated to have cost anywhere from 150,000-1 million lives in the early 13th century -- the equivalent of 4.5 million people today. Also laid at the feet of religious differences. And that was done when the technology for killing was *bows and swords.* Imagine what they could have done with more effective techniques.

I would offer that influences on young people can help to move them towards committing heinous acts, even if they are unaware of such influences.

So, if we find Christian influences in the pasts of killers, that's a sign that it helped move them towards heinous acts? Even if they're unaware of it?

I am not claiming that the Connecticut killer was influenced overtly by these types of reasons alone. I am claiming that this is a factor that should be seriously considered.

Indeed; and if the killer is found to have been, outwardly, a devout Christian, should we take that into account in considering who might be a killer in the future? Or is this one of your usual one-way arguments?

Because this is what society is being trained for by default presently in US public schools.

You have, again, not made your point at all; you've strung together vague allegations, a lot of "maybe this could be" and "we should consider this", and tried to wrap it up with a strong summary. Heck, we don't have syllogisms, even. This is weak even by your usual attempts at logical and sociological reasoning.

I hope no one from Newtown, CT is reading your blog -- they don't deserve to have their tragedy used for your purposes in such a risible and deceitful fashion.

Instead of offering an appropriate introduction, textbooks are presented in public schools within no philosophical framework or context whatsoever. The underlying presupposition is that 'Science can and will answer all the important questions." This presupposition, however, is quite false. This approach is known basically as 'positivism' and practically all secular reference sources state that this philosophical position is a "dead" one. For example, the New World Encyclopedia, "Today, among most philosophers, positivism is dead..." Nevertheless, atheists at my blog continue to say, "Science possesses all the instruments that philosophy has for that [addressing foundational questions]."

If adults do not even recognize how to distinguish between scientific truth and very basic philosophical understandings, how can we expect young public school children to make these distinctions and affirm their philosophical autonomy in the midst of this type of pressure? The system is rigged against any children who hold any view other than the promoted materialistic-atheistic one. This is not limited to the general approach, it pertains to the text in the chapters as well.

When public school science textbooks touch on the theme of life's origin, the Stanley Miller experiment is often cited. However, the films and textbooks fail to mention the many negative aspects of the Miller experiment and the fact that the experiment did not even come close to producing life. At best, the experiment produces a mixture of complex organic compounds, which are not organized. It may be likened more to a dead body than life.

1. By default, public schools present positivism as a supposed valid philosophical approach towards acquiring knowledge.2. Most secular reference sources agree that positivism is a "dead" philosophical approach.3. Therefore, pubic schools present a dead philosophical approach to students by default.

RickInstead of offering an appropriate introduction, textbooks are presented in public schools within no philosophical framework or context whatsoever.Isn't that what you characters want? True neutrality?

Remember: If you say that they are promoting "materialism" then that goes against the claim you just made here.

The underlying presupposition is that 'Science can and will answer all the important questions."No, the underlying presupposition is something that you just made up. If there is "no philosophical framework or context whatsoever" then there is no presupposition!

This presupposition, however, is quite false.Only the claim that there is one. I've never heard of any science textbook that even came close to claiming that science will answer all the "important" questions.

It seems Warden is literally trying to made a complaint out of nothing here.

Remember: If you say that they are promoting "materialism" then that goes against the claim you just made here.

I suspect this is just a broader form of the classic claim that any claim about gods is a "religion", and thus believing in "no gods" is a "religion". If you don't support a particular philosophical framework, you are supporting the framework of "no framework".

Yes, this is logically incoherent. That has seldom stopped Rick before.

I agree my point could have been more clearly stated. Let me try again:

Public school curricula and textbooks today present ideas from an exclusively atheistic-materilaistic perspective, all the while pretending the education is philosophically neutral. Eviscerating education of all worldviews except for one is not true neutrality. The censorship of all other worldviews is all the more deceitful because this censorship is never addressed and discussed in class.

Instead of offering an appropriate introduction, textbooks are presented in public schools without describing the philosophical framework and context. The underlying presupposition is that 'Science can and will answer all the important questions." This presupposition, however, is quite false. This approach is known basically as 'positivism' and practically all secular reference sources state that this philosophical position is a "dead" one. For example, the New World Encyclopedia, "Today, among most philosophers, positivism is dead..." Nevertheless, atheists at my blog continue to say, "Science possesses all the instruments that philosophy has for that [addressing foundational questions]."

I know you're trying to maintain a "wall of silence" with regards to me, Mr. Warden, but let me ask:

Given the nature of the Constitution, it seems to be the schools have two choices with regards to "philosophical framework and context":

1) Not support any specific one, allowing other people to provide the context they see fitting (family members and other social contacts)

or

2) Provide clarification and support for any "philosophical context" that they are asked to do, with as neutral a presentation as possible.

For example, your presentations here on Christian philosophy are not neutral; they're written from a Christian POV, and make certain assumptions. Similarly, a Jewish one would be different, an Islamic one, a neo-pagan, an Asatruar, a Scientological -- there is no way to wrap these all into a single "philosophical framework and context" without endorsing one of many, which is prohibited.

I have yet to read a science textbook (or a citation from you regarding one) that implies your presupposition is at all true; I have read many that imply "Science is the best way to answer questions about the material world", which is a *much* different statement.

Say in a science class "I believe God created the world", and you should get ignored. Say "I believe God created the world 6,000 years ago" and you should get pointed to the evidence *against* this position, since it is not a scientific viewpoint.

Here is another example of a creationist (Paul Nelson) making a claim which is promptly shot down by reality. In that case, he had tried to put words into other's mouths.

Note that the topic in question is dealing with the efficacy of natural selection.

The money section is from this excerpt on:So I pulled all these guys out from behind the sign by sending them this email, which was designed not to support selection, but to solicit, without imposing bias, their opinions about the importance of selection (I enclosed Nelson’s email with mine):

This deserves its own post. Yesterday I pointed to a post at Larry Moran’s Sandwalk about a Discovery Institute video showing Ann Gauger, a “researcher” at the Disco ‘Tute’s BioLogic Institute, in which she mangles phylogenetics and population genetics. Commenters on Youtube and both Sandwalk and here have identified the laboratory in which Gauger was supposedly speaking. It is a stock photograph from a commercial photo site. It’s a green screen job, which is a peculiarly appropriate method by which to present the DI’s pseudoscience. Fake lab, fake science.

The point of these posts Warden is that before one can have their view taught in school, they have to be honest and have actual evidence to back them up. If the only evidence they can bring up involves being dishonest, then they have nothing.

Whoops. Need to fix up my first post: In the link that I gave to the Dover trial, it was to the overall trial, and not to the section I wanted. This is the corrected version of that post.

===========WardenPublic school curricula and textbooks today present ideas from an exclusively atheistic-materialistic perspective, all the while pretending the education is philosophically neutral.How so? Did it ever occur to you that that "materialist" or ("naturalist" view just might be the one with the evidence supporting it? That when creationist claims are examined, they keep falling apart?

WardenEviscerating education of all worldviews except for one is not true neutrality.False ideas (or at least unproven ideas) have no place to be taught as fact in schools.

WardenThe censorship of all other worldviews is all the more deceitful because this censorship is never addressed and discussed in class.How is teaching reality as we so far know it "censorship"? If the facts supported your world view Warden, it would be your worldview that would be taught.

Remember: In the original Scopes trial, it was creationism that was the order of the day. If the evidence since then supported it, that would have never changed.

By the way: Where were the christians complaining about "neutrality" or "teaching the controversy" back then? It's only after your worldview fell out of favour that you people are preaching that.

Besides when it comes to other worldviews that you are pretending to care about: did you ever think just how many "other worldviews" there are, Warden?

How much time would that stuff take from the already-squeezed out time that they have to learn?

Do you actually want all the other "worldviews" taught? Or just yours?

Nevertheless, public schools skip over logic and philosophy and offer curricula and texbooks that wrongly imply materialistic atheism is a factual condition. On the contrary, top atheist apologists cannot hold their own and logically defend atheistic materialism in debate.

>Where were the christians complaining about "neutrality" or "teaching the controversy" back then?

- So, this apparently is another point in your argument: "If there was bias towards one worldview in the past, then it's OK to have bias towards another worldview today.

1) Notice this nebulous concept of "fundamental" ideas that Rick keeps bringing up, but as far as I know has never defined. I presume he's talking about the classic "How do we know anything?", "what is truth", etc.

Because on "foundational questions" like "what is death?" science gives us answers logic cannot.

2) Logic does not depend on science for determining the *consistency* of ideas; that is not the same as truth.

Given true premises, valid logic produces true results -- but given false premises, valid logic produces false results. And where do we get those premises from?

Warden: It looks like imnotandrei and Anonymous have dealt with most of what you said, so I'll just deal with this statement of yours:Nevertheless, public schools skip over logic and philosophy and offer curricula and texbooks that wrongly imply materialistic atheism is a factual condition.What is the evidence that they "imply" atheism in the first place?

Citations needed if you're going to make such a broad accusation, Rick.

Once you have shown that, then: How do you know that "materialistim" is not a "factual condition"?

Once again you're just whining because schools no longer teach YOUR views. Tough. As the links I've put up show: The evidence is not on your side.

It's a bit amazing to me that after all this writing you still claim there is no "evidence" that secular US public education implies that materialistic atheism is the "true" worldview.

The other atheists posting at this blog have not really dealt with any of my points adequately.

1. Anonymous is still in a serious state of denial regarding the grandeur of science, as many, many are in the world:

"Correction - without science to check its premises, logic arrive at invalid conclusions."

- Science is not used to "check" logic. It's the other way around. Empirical evidence may be useful at times, but science is not necessary in order for logical principles to be utilized.

2. Imnotandrei has a difficult time accepting the fact that there are some kinds of questions that science cannot answer, and for this reason he seems to support "scientism" as described by Julian Baggini:

“What is disparagingly called scientism insists that, if a question isn’t amenable to scientific solution, it is not a serious question at all.”

Just a small sample of questions science cannot answer: "Science cannot arrive at moral truths - You cannot get an “ought” from an “is" through science."And more basic, "Why is there something instead of nothing?" Empiricism just cannot reach back that far. "Where did the natural laws, such as gravity, come from?" and "Does the supernatural exist?" "Does God exist?"

Two of these questions directly address your point, Reynold. Science cannot address the question of God's existence or the supernatural because contemporary science operates according to methodological naturalism. It operates according to the presupposition that only natural causes exist.

It should seem obvious that handing a student a science textbook and not explaining that this approach is based on a presupposition that God does not exist implies that it is simply understood in academia that God does not exist. Without a proper understanding of the place of science as a branch of knowledge subservient to logic and a larger philosophical and worldview context, this approach is quite deceitful.

The other atheists posting at this blog have not really dealt with any of my points adequately.

The irony of this is rich, given that you refuse to engage with most of my points at all.

2. Imnotandrei has a difficult time accepting the fact that there are some kinds of questions that science cannot answer,

Nonsense. I have never asserted that. I gave one example of a "foundational question" that science can answer -- and several that it can't.

However, thank you for finally providing some examples of so-called "foundational questions".

Only one of which I have seen people argue that science really can answer -- "Where did the natural laws come from?" -- "THey are an emergent property of the nature of space-time and mass-energy" is a simplified answer.

It should seem obvious that handing a student a science textbook and not explaining that this approach is based on a presupposition that God does not exist implies that it is simply understood in academia that God does not exist.

No, it is based upon a presupposition that the existence of God is not a subject for science class to touch upon, because it can't answer those questions in *either* *direction*.

Without a proper understanding of the place of science as a branch of knowledge subservient to logic and a larger philosophical and worldview context, this approach is quite deceitful.

We've been over this before, Rick, but I'll repeat: your notions of "subservience" are reliant upon a very high-end and specific view. "Logic", as you're trying to invoke here, does not depend upon a specific philosophical viewpoint either; so requiring it to be taught in a "larger philosophical and worldview context" is simply a deceitful way to claim that your religious views belong in a science class.

Teach logic, certainly -- but don't try and pretend that you need your "foundational questions" answered in a school science class. Adults have been arguing about those questions for *centuries* and come to no definite conclusions -- why should we expect schools to teach them before teaching things clearly based on observable fact?

WardenIt's a bit amazing to me that after all this writing you still claim there is no "evidence" that secular US public education implies that materialistic atheism is the "true" worldview.I don't find it surprising at all that you have yet to provide any evidence of such a thing, yet you pretend that you have. All you've given is evidence that xianity is not given the favourite position in education.

That's about it. A far cry from your allegation that it's "materialistic atheism" is the educational system's "true worldview".

Let's look at your whining here:It should seem obvious that handing a student a science textbook and not explaining that this approach is based on a presupposition that God does not exist implies that it is simply understood in academia that God does not exist.Which "god", Warden? That's the problem! What is a textbook supposed to say? Is it supposed to give homage to every single "god" out there in order to be truly "fair", or are you again just whining because it's your god that's not explicitly mentioned? Remember: Schools are supposed to be NEUTRAL.

You are "confusing" neutral with "hostile".

Without a proper understanding of the place of science as a branch of knowledge subservient to logic and a larger philosophical and worldview context, this approach is quite deceitful.It's not "logic" that you're concerned about: It's your "god" that you want mentioned. (probably to be snuck in under that "larger philosophical and worldview context" that you mention).

>you have yet to provide any evidence of such a thing (that secular US public education implies that materialistic atheism is the "true" worldview.)

Let me try to summarize it clearly for you:

1. Contemporary science is based on methodological naturalism - the avoidance of the supernatural as a possible cause.

2. Public schools present science as the most reliable authority on reality and the world in which we live.

3. Public schools do not qualify atheism and scientific knowledge in the context of philosophical limits, in the context other worldviews, or in the context of updated criticisms waged against specific theories.

4. Therefore, public schools teach atheistic-materialism as factual by implication.

1. P presents A is true in S.2. P presents S as the most reliable authority on what constitutes reality.3. P does not qualify A or S in P, w or C or at all.4. Therefore, P implies A is true always.

R:Logic is not a branch of science, it is a branch of philosophy. We use logical laws to check the logic of reasoning, not observation

This does not answer my question, Rick. I repeat:

How do you check the validity of premises without science?

A logical system can exist without science. Let me give you an example.

1. Birds can fly2. Chickens are birds.3. Hence, chickens can fly.

Here you have a logically valid structure that arrives at an incorrect conclusion.

R:Contemporary science is based on methodological naturalism - the avoidance of the supernatural as a possible cause.

Rick, the "supernatural" does not offer any explanation on how the world works, while science is supposed to explain how the world works. Do you understand now why science does not include "supernatural" hypothesis?

R:Textbooks sometimes present incorrect facts which support the materialist-atheist paradigm.

Science does not claim it is irrefutable. However, it has a self-correcting mechanism, unlike religion.

Furthermore, your link has been refuted before and is full of faulty information (not that you care about it in the first place).

>you have yet to provide any evidence of such a thing (that secular US public education implies that materialistic atheism is the "true" worldview.)Let me try to summarize it clearly for you:

1. Contemporary science is based on methodological naturalism - the avoidance of the supernatural as a possible cause.Some questions, Rick:

-Do you know the difference between "methodological naturalism" and "philosophical naturalism"?

That's the main point right there.

There are problems with you wanting supernaturalism taught in schools:-Do you have any idea how supernatural claims of any sort could be tested for, Rick? Which supernatural claims should be taught in schools? Do you realize that if any supernatural explanation is accepted for something than no further investigation into that something will ever happen and we wind up remaining ignorant? ex) how lightning works, how diseases work, etc

How can you justify that being taught in schools, Rick? How can you tell when no "natural" explanation will work and only a supernatural one will?

Because of what I just brought up: Do you ever think that there might be a reason for there being "methodological naturalism" in schools?

2. Public schools present science as the most reliable authority on reality and the world in which we live.Only when compared with other so-called "authorities". If you've got something with a better track record of describing and predicting how reality is, show it.

3. Public schools do not qualify atheism and scientific knowledge in the context of philosophical limits, in the context other worldviews, or in the context of updated criticisms waged against specific theories.What other worldviews would you want, Rick? As for philosophical limits? Like what? Like "science can't explain such-and-such so this must be a supernatural force at work"?

Is that what you're whining about?

Rick: Unless you are actually in school: How do you know enough to even make all these accusations in the first place?

4. Therefore, public schools teach atheistic-materialism as factual by implication.Wrong. They don't say one way or the other. If you knew the difference between methodological and philisophical naturalism you would maybe know that.

1. P presents A is true in S.2. P presents S as the most reliable authority on what constitutes reality.3. P does not qualify A or S in P, w or C or at all.4. Therefore, P implies A is true always.And another "logical" construct with your usual flawed premises.

You are avoiding my premises and offering tangential points. Is the following statement true or false?

1. Contemporary science is based on methodological naturalism - the avoidance of the supernatural as a possible cause.

And this one:

2. Public schools present science as the most reliable (and only) authority on what constitutes reality and the world in which we live.

True or false, Reynold?

3. Public schools do not qualify atheism and scientific knowledge in the context of philosophical framework, in the context other worldviews, or in the context of updated criticisms waged against specific theories.

4. Therefore, public schools teach atheistic-materialism as factual by implication.

>-Do you have any idea how supernatural claims of any sort could be tested for, Rick?

- I nowhere offered that the supernatural should be offered as testable science. I simply offered that science and education should be taught honestly with respect to the wider philosophical context and implications of what is being taught.

> Unless you are actually in school: How do you know enough to even make all these accusations

- Reynold, which of my premises seem to be false or unfounded "accusations" in your opinion?

WardenYou are avoiding my premises and offering tangential points. Is the following statement true or false?

1. Contemporary science is based on methodological naturalism - the avoidance of the supernatural as a possible cause.

True.

Why? Because you can't test for the supernatural! If you can, Warden then please, tell us how.

The point is: That is not the same as claiming that there is no god, Warden!

I asked you the difference between philosophical and methodological naturalism and you missed the point, as usual.

I now refer you the the points that you kept dodging: How would one test for the supernatural? At what line does one give up on natural How can one tell which supernatural being is responsible?

Warden2. Public schools present science as the most reliable (and only) authority on what constitutes reality and the world in which we live.

True or false, Reynold?In terms of the physical world, True. So what?

Again, it has nothing to do with whether any "god" exists or not.

Warden3. Public schools do not qualify atheism and scientific knowledge in the context of philosophical framework, in the context other worldviews, or in the context of updated criticisms waged against specific theories.False.

Schools don't talk about atheism, PERIOD, Warden, much less offer any "context" or "philosophical framework". They are not supposed to talk about religion, period...pro OR con.

Besides, many science courses DO mention alternate theories and their strengths and weaknesses and why other theories get discarded. If YECism and IDism are two of those theories, tough.

I gave links in an earlier post that show why they don't cut the mustard.

Again, address, the premise I offer, not your substitute ones.You're trying to link completely unrelated facts to your charge of atheism being the official position of schools.

WardenTrue or false, Reynold?False, as I said.

Warden4. Therefore, public schools teach atheistic-materialism as factual by implication.No. They are neutral. They don't say one thing or another. Again, read up on the difference between methodological and philosophical naturalism

It is you, Warden who continually throws out these irrelevant questions instead of actually backing up your charge of ATHEISM being the official school position.

I asked for citations, for evidence. I want them instead of having to chase you down these little rabbit trails.

- I nowhere offered that the supernatural should be offered as testable science.Uh, what exactly is this then? 1. Contemporary science is based on methodological naturalism - the avoidance of the supernatural as a possible cause.

WardenI simply offered that science and education should be taught honestly with respect to the wider philosophical context and implications of what is being taught.

So you want schools to break the law and to start teaching whether their is a god or not??

I'd have thought that you people would do that at home. So, you want your philosophical and religious views shoved down the throats of other people's kids?

And here you are, whining away and pretending that it's people like you who care about academic freedom.

>without scientific knowledge we arrive at a false conclusion about reality.

Do explain why "scientific knowledge" is necessary to understand what flying birds are and why a chicken is as a unique bird. I see no scientific method or falsifiability necessary for such knowledge.

Because pure logic, without reference to external fact, does not allow us to make correct assessments about that external fact.

This is why all your wittering about the primacy of philosophy is irrelevant to a science class; logic, while it can guarantee formal validity, cannot guarantee *correctness* without something outside itself to test its premises. Science provides a framework for testing those premises, which, for example, theology does not.

And as for your "questions for atheists", as usual, a) you're making presumptions, and b) why should any of the commenters on your blog answer your unrelated questions, when you leave so many other questions unanswered yourself?

R:Do explain why "scientific knowledge" is necessary to understand what flying birds are and why a chicken is as a unique bird. I see no scientific method or falsifiability necessary for such knowledge.

Imnotandrei has just explained why science is essential to claims about reality.

You do not know from the start how to check your premises, Rick. You do not even have an alternative system for methodological naturalism. Even if your reasoning is true, your conclusions are faulty because of your inability to check the premises.

With my chicken example we use biology. Through empirical knowledge we establish that not all birds can fly and we also establish that a chicken is indeed a bird (be it through genetics or anatomy). And even if we did make a mistake (it turns out that chickens can fly or that they are not birds), sooner or later through methodological naturalism our knowledge is corrected.

I wrote, "3. Public schools do not qualify atheism and scientific knowledge in the context of philosophical framework, in the context other worldviews, or in the context of updated criticisms waged against specific theories.

True or False."

You wrote, "False. Schools don't talk about atheism."

Nowhere did I wrote that schools talk specifically about atheism. Your "false" answer is based on a non-sequitur. Materialistic atheism is implied in the manner in which science is taught in the curricula.

Reynold, explain how not talking about about a subject is qualifying it.

>So you want schools to break the law and to start teaching whether their is a god or not??

- The law I believe you are referring to is both controversial in it's interpretation and in its execution. Public schools in England and in many countries allow for free discussions on the meaning of life and possible interpretations of this meaning.

>So, you want your philosophical and religious views shoved down the throats of other people's kids?

- I'm sure in what manner allowing free speech and free inquiry is having "views shoved down the throats of other people's kids?" It seems to be quite the other way around with respect to materialistic atheism. My how the suicide rate has increased since this all began to be implemented

Peter Kreeft has noted,

"Suicide among pre-adults has increased 5000% since the "happy days" of the '50s. If suicide, especially among the coming generation, is not an index of crisis, nothing is."

http://www.ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/CULTURE.HTM

He does not cite statistics so I won't claim this statistic is written in stone. Based on what I've read and observed, I have no reason to doubt it, though.

- Is that what I wrote? No. Did I write that. Did I write that science itself needs an alternative approach? No, nowhere. Did I write that science should "test for the supernatural" as Reynold stated? No.

Upon failing to counter my premises demonstrating that US public schools teach that atheistic-materialism is true by implication, you seem to have a need to distort what I've actually written.

I'll repeat the summary:

Scientific positivism is a dead philosophy. The fact that public schools continue to present science and atheistic methodological naturalism as the "be-all and end-all" for determining the nature of reality is deceitful. Until there is a fair and balanced view of history, philosophy and religion in public schools, the negative aspects of secular humanism and atheism being taught by default will continue to negatively affect society on many levels.

Like always, you drop topics you are uncormfotable with. Oh well... People can judge themselves on how dishonest you are.

R:Upon failing to counter my premises demonstrating that US public schools teach that atheistic-materialism is true by implication, you seem to have a need to distort what I've actually written

Explain what you are unhappy with then. Are you unhappy that science does not teach philosophy?

If you are so disapointed that methodological naturalism implies atheistic materialism, well suck it up or provide a better alternative for investigation.

R:Scientific positivism is a dead philosophy.

Because it withholds judgement on matters we have insufficient information for like your "fundamental questions"? Ok, then it is dead. So what? We are not talking about a philosophy class, but a science class.

R:Until there is a fair and balanced view of history, philosophy and religion in public schools, the negative aspects of secular humanism and atheism being taught by default will continue to negatively affect society on many levels.

Liar. You have not managed to prove any negative aspects of secular humanism or atheism.

- Again, you seem to be having a very difficult time in simply reading what I have already written several times already.

If science is taught based upon methodological naturalism, it should be clearly explained to students what this means and what it implies in the larger context of the school curriculum and with regard to various worldviews. It is not necessary for 'science to teach philosophy' but it should be taught properly in a larger context.

In terms of the negative effects of atheistic secular humanist hegemony, I had already pointed this out in the article:

Gallup Polls have demonstrated that more religious countries have lower suicide rates. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to determine that, for example, a worldview that teaches we are created with great value and purpose would offer more reasons for respecting life than a worldview that suggests life first occurred basically by accident as a random occurrence. A major problem with public school system is that it does not address the question of worldviews. By avoiding an objective discussion of worldviews, a lopsided, atheistic-materialistic approach to education is offered by default.

BTW, you still have not answered my question regarding the science of morality

R:Again, you seem to be having a very difficult time in simply reading what I have already written several times already.

DO remind me, Rick. How many times did you edit your article? Forgive me for not wasting time reviewing each time your propaganda.

R:If science is taught based upon methodological naturalism, it should be clearly explained to students what this means and what it implies in the larger context of the school curriculum

Do explain what it means and what it implies in the larger context of the school curriculum.

BTW:Secular humanism does not explain existence as you claim in your article.

R:Gallup Polls have demonstrated that more religious countries have lower suicide rates.

Correlation does not equal causation, Rick. That is not proof.

You are also cherry picking data as always.

R:By avoiding an objective discussion of worldviews, a lopsided, atheistic-materialistic approach to education is offered by default

That is false, Rick. It is discussed in philosophy or ethics classes.

R:BTW, you still have not answered my question regarding the science of morality

I did, several times in fact. You just ignored my answers and I have too much respect for myself to repeat the same thing for five or six times.

R:Public schools do not qualify atheism and scientific knowledge in the context of philosophical limits, in the context other worldviews, or in the context of updated criticisms waged against specific theories.

1. Public schools do not teach atheism, Rick. There are no such classes.

2. There are no better methodologies than methodological naturalism. What is the point of offering several useless comtexts in this case?

3. Legitimate criticism is offered against specific theories. Like criticism for the string theory. However, pseudoscience like Intelligent Design has no place in a science classroom.

WardenI wrote, "3. Public schools do not qualify atheism and scientific knowledge in the context of philosophical framework, in the context other worldviews, or in the context of updated criticisms waged against specific theories.

True or False."

You wrote, "False. Schools don't talk about atheism."

Nowhere did I wrote that schools talk specifically about atheism.No, you just said that it's "implied" over and over and over again. Yeah, like that makes a huge difference!

Your "false" answer is based on a non-sequitur. Materialistic atheism is implied in the manner in which science is taught in the curricula.And here you go again! So again: What would YOU have taught, Rick?

Reynold, explain how not talking about about a subject is qualifying it.**Just read on where I noted that schools often do talk about other theories, etc. That's how they qualify them. As for atheism, as I said: They are not supposed to talk about it.

**Maybe I should have saved my "false" statement until after I had made that point, so you'd see what I was referring to. It was late...

Warden- I'm sure in what manner allowing free speech and free inquiry is having "views shoved down the throats of other people's kids?"You didn't talk about "fee speech" until now, Rick. Up until then it was just you whining that so-called "other viewpoints" didn't get expressed. I pointed out that in school, other theories are discussed, especially as to why they aren't taught as fact anymore. That seems to be something that you can't accept.

Tough. Reality, Warden, does not go by popular demand.

It seems to be quite the other way around with respect to materialistic atheism.Bull. Once again, may I point out that methodological and philisophical naturalism are different?

May I also point out that it's the YEC and the ID people who have their little statements of faith where they promise to stick to their party line no matter what the evidence may otherwise indicate? No secular educational institution has anything like that.

WardenMy how the suicide rate has increased since this all began to be implementedCitation needed. Plus as was said: Fallacy of consequences. For a person who gives as much lip service to logic as you do, Warden, you sure don't really practice it, do you?

WardenGallup Polls have demonstrated that more religious countries have lower suicide rates. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to determine that, for example, a worldview that teaches we are created with great value and purpose would offer more reasons for respecting life than a worldview that suggests life first occurred basically by accident as a random occurrence.Citations needed, Rick. Just your saying so doesn't mean a thing. Perhaps you'd like to have a look throughout history to see just how theists have "valued" life? Ex) the thirty years war again??

Perhaps Rick would like to have a look at the suicide rates of certain non-xian countries compared to that of the States? Maybe that might straighten him out?http://www.who.int/mental_health/prevention/suicide_rates/en/

Actually, in regards to:=======================Warden- I'm sure in what manner allowing free speech and free inquiry is having "views shoved down the throats of other people's kids?"

****You didn't talk about "fee speech" until now, Rick. Up until then it was just you whining that so-called "other viewpoints" didn't get expressed.**** I pointed out that in school, other theories are discussed, especially as to why they aren't taught as fact anymore. That seems to be something that you can't accept.I can't remember if Warden used the terms "free speech" earlier in this posting or not. And I'm too tired to go combing through all this just to see.

Still, my point remains: Other theories are discussed in schools, and the reasons why they are not used anymore.

Rick: Nevertheless, atheists at my blog continue to say, "Science possesses all the instruments that philosophy has for that [addressing foundational questions]."I haven't said such a thing, nor do I recall anyone else saying such a thing.What I have said is that intersubjective empirical investigation is the best means of finding out about reality we know of (probably the only means which results in justifiable knowledge claims).

Rick: The system is rigged against any children who hold any view other than the promoted materialistic-atheistic one.Please back up your claim that the "promoted" view is atheistic.

Rick: When public school science textbooks touch on the theme of life's origin, the Stanley Miller experiment is often cited.Of course, when you're talking about scientific research into the origin of life, then the Miller-Urey experiment is worth mentioning.

Rick: 1. By default, public schools present positivism as a supposed valid philosophical approach towards acquiring knowledge.This premise is unjustified, and to me it seems to be plainly false.

Rick: 3. Therefore, pubic schools present a dead philosophical approach to students by default.Since premise 1 is unjustified (and, I would argue, false), your conclusion does not follow, and your argument fails.

H:I haven't said such a thing, nor do I recall anyone else saying such a thing.

I was the one, who made that claim. I believe that science can offer an answer to any question, provided sufficient data has been gathered and it is possible to answer the question in the first place. Oh! And I forgot to add the bit "if enough time is provided".

Though, Rick has as usual correlated "one atheist said so" to "atheists say so". And that is completely dishonest of him.

H:Please back up your claim that the "promoted" view is atheistic

What Rick complains about is that creationism is not taught in a science class as an alternative to abiogenesis and evolution.

I agree that when it comes to reality, science broadly conceived (intersubjective empirical investigation) is currently the only means we have of finding explanations, which goes for origins. This science can be informed by philosophy, but no amount of armchair philosophy will provide an explanation (without being informed by empirical investigation, and therefore becoming science broadly conceived).

It seems that Rick is upset to be living in a secular nation, and that thus far his deity is completely superfluous as far as scientific explanations are concerned. I would guess that that's why he rails against the lack of government support of Christianity, and that is why he falls for pseudo-science like Intelligent Design.

I explained to you in details my position on morality (a variant of virtue ethics) several times. You dismissed it without offering any arguments against my position. I see no need to repeat myself for the who-knows-which-time.

You have shown one time after another that you hold no interest in truth or the stance of your opponents. Since you are only interested in pushing your propaganda, answering your question would be mostly a waste of time.

Which of the following views do you hold as the scientifically correct one?

You are conflating the top part, which describes observable facts -- that moral rules differ from culture to culture -- with the bottom, which asks for specific ethical points. I do not hold either as "scientifically correct", because science is not the right tool for weighing *ethical* questions.

Your question is akin to asking: "Which is the blue one, religion or atheism?" -- you have a category mismatch.